Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglar

Comments (52)

• Suburban Dad, Levittown Tuesday, Nov 25 at 12:38 PM FLAG COMMENT Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property. (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property. —The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary: (1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or (2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if: (i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and (ii)— (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or (B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained. (b) Meaning of possession. — For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section: (1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession. (2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon. (3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right. (c) ... MORE >
• Suburban Dad, Levittown Tuesday, Nov 25 at 12:37 PM FLAG COMMENT Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons. (a) General rule. — The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when: (1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect; (2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and (3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person. (b) Exceptions.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section: (1) When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person. (2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way. (3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling, or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own. ... MORE >
• Suburban Dad, Levittown Tuesday, Nov 25 at 12:35 PM FLAG COMMENT Mr. Jenkins perhaps you should read the laws for your self: Title 18, §505. Use of Force in Self-Protection. (a)Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. (b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. — (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or (ii)to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if: (A)the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; (B)the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or (C)the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury. ... MORE >
• Omar Jerome Jenkins Monday, Nov 24 at 7:39 AM FLAG COMMENT Suburban Dad - please do not feed the public mis-information regarding the legalities of using deadly force. In the great state of PA, you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect or retrieve your property. You are only allowed to use deadly force if you face immenent death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat. PA does not have a 'Castle Doctrine' or 'Stand Your Ground Doctrine' so any use of deadly force in a situation not outlined above could or will land you in jail. PA needs to follow suit with the states of Florida and Texas and create more laws to protect victims instead of protecting criminals. The victim in this crime was well within his rights to neutralize the threat (i.e., the perp). That is a life and death scenario in which the use of deadly force is justified. There was another news story about a carjacked victim chased down his carjarcker and shot him - guess who is going to jail...both of em! One thing that gun owners know is that dead men can't sue, but their families can. So you better make sure that you are 100% justified in using deadly threat or else you are going to be paying the perp's family for the rest of your life. ... MORE >
• BLAADE Sunday, Nov 23 at 8:07 PM FLAG COMMENT no comment: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456455,00.htmlno comment: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456455,00.html

Show More Comments »

Post a Comment